Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEAL A regular meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, July 7, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN SNA 03-07.00: Sign Variance (Shake's, pp 252) Page 2 SNA 03-09.00: Sign Variance (Golden Corral, pp 96) Page 6 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Andrews Sheree Alt Michael Green Joanne Olszewski Bob Kohler Bob Nickle Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT James Kunzelmann STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 2003 Page 2 SNA 03-07.00: Sign Variance (Shake's, pp 252) was submitted by Matt Smith of MDH Builders, Inc. on behalf of Shake's Frozen Custard, Inc. for property located at 2835 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare. One monument sign has been approved for the restaurant. The request is for an additional monument sign for the home office, which is on the same site and a roof sign for the restaurant displaying the company's trademark. Green: At this time we will convene the meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals. We will now review the agenda of the Board of Sign Appeals. Under old business we had a sign variance requested, SNA 03-7.00 on behalf of Shake's Frozen Custard. Can you refresh my memory? Did we table this? Warrick: We tabled this item because we were lacking representation. Green: Since this item was tabled at our previous meeting we will need a motion to remove it from the table. MOTION: Andrews: So moved. Olszewski: I will second. Green: There is a motion and a second to remove it from the table. Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to remove SNA 03-7.00 from the table carried by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: We will now consider this sign appeal. Dawn, can you give us the background report? Warrick: Sure. The subject property is located at 2785 and 2835 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.66 acres. There are two buildings that are currently proposed for development in this location. One of which is almost complete. This is a redevelopment site and it consists of a new corporate office and a new retail store for Shake's Frozen Custard. It is immediately adjacent to their existing location there on North College. The Large Scale Development was approved by the Planning Commission with the condition of approval of a sign variance through the Board of Sign Appeals. The applicant has requested an additional free standing sign for the home office and since there is also a free standing sign that has been proposed for the restaurant that does require Board of Sign Appeal consideration. The requirement is for one free standing sign per lot. The applicant has proposed for the second free standing sign a monument sign identifying the location of the corporate office. That is identified on pages 1.15 and 1.16, which indicate the two monument signs that are being proposed. The first is for the restaurant itself and the second for the Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 2003 Page 3 home office. You can see a little bit more on the last page of the packet, 1.20, this is a site plan that shows where the proposed restaurant is being built. You can tell that the existing restaurant is about in the location of the outdoor dining area that is indicated on that site plan and that the very top of that map is the location of the home office. There is a proposed sign in the island that is between the restaurant and the home office. I have been told that they are proposing a few modifications to the layout of the home office portion of the site and that may shuffle the sign location a little bit but it still will be within the rear of the property behind the restaurant to identify the home office. I think that pretty well covers it. You have also been provided with some additional information with regard to their signage package. This particular request that we are bringing to you now is for the second free standing sign. Staff is recommending in favor of that with the following conditions: 1) The proposed signs comply with conditions of the electrical code and be permitted accordingly. 2) A sign permit be acquired prior to installation. I think it is appropriate to add 3) That the signs installed shall be reflective of those presented in this packet. Staff and the Planning Commission does believe that the monument signs are more attractive in this particular location and reflect the goals of the city's commercial design standards which were reviewed through the Large Scale Review process. Green: Ok, would the applicant like to address us? Cooper: I am Tim Cooper. I am the architect on the project working with Shake's. Basically the reason for the second sign is to identify the corporate office. Also, the corporate office is going to also have a kitchen inside it which will be a training facility to train franchisees and to shuttle back and forth between that building and the actual operating Shake's to get hands on experience. It is kind of an almost campus situation that is driving this. It is not really for customers as much as it is for franchisees trying to locate the building as they enter the property and that sort of thing. This is going to be their headquarters for the country. Even though it is going to be a small building, they are going to have satellite offices other places but that is the reason is to kind of identify it as the headquarters. Kohler: Is the home office monument sign three dimensional? Is it a globe? Cooper: It is. Kohler: Does it move? Cooper: It will, the actual globe will actually rotate. The insides of that haven't been designed so it is just kind of an idea of what is going to happen. It hasn't been priced yet. Green: Can we have a moveable sign? Warrick: We are actually discussing the moving sign issue. Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 2003 Page 4 Whitaker: Nickle: Warrick: Cooper: Warrick: Andrews: Whitaker: Warrick: Green: Olszewski: Warrick: Warrick: Kohler: I think I would have to look at it. There are some mitigating circumstances here. It is very far away from the main thoroughfare if you notice on the site plan. We wouldn't be approving the sign, all we are approving is the location for the additional sign? Actually, as the Board of Sign Appeals you have a lot of latitude in what you may approve as a variance to the sign ordinance I think this may fall under a prohibited sign section if it truly does revolve, move, rotate in some way, shape or form. That may be an item that is going to be cost prohibitive anyway. I think it is important in this particular situation that the sign not move unless that is the specific request that you have before the Board of Sign Appeals to vary from that particular prohibition. One rotation every twenty-four hours would probably be ok. Dawn points out Subsection D of the recently affective revised ordinance. "It shall be unlawful for any person to erect or continue using any sign on the exterior which revolves, rotates or otherwise moves in whole or part." I think that pretty much covers movement. It is pretty all encompassing there. I am very glad to see any home office come to our area here. I think that is a good addition to our community. Dawn, you said earlier we should add a condition that the signs match? I think they should be consistent with what has been submitted in your packet as far as the elevations and materials. This is the sign package that they propose to install but I think it is important that we recognize that this is what we expect to see out on the site. Olszewski: Another condition would be as shown on the request except it would not be a moving sign? Yes. With that information, we're going with this so the question I ask about the moving is that we need to put in a condition that it be stationary? Green: Actually, if it doesn't request it there's no reason to request a waiver. Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 2003 Page 5 Warrick: That is more of an advisory statement from us I think. Kohler: Should we include that in our motion? Whitaker: It never hurts to be too clear on anything. However, I don't think they are making that request at this time. Kohler: Ok. MOTION: Andrews: I will move that we approve SNA 03-07.00 with staff recommendations and also an added condition that they must comply with the submitted elevations and information we have today and also that the signs are not moving, revolving or rotating as stated in our ordinance. Alt: I will second Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance with the added conditions that the sign shall not move, rotate or revolve and that they match the elevations as set forth in our packets today. Is there any further discussion or comments from the audience? Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 03-07.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Tape Skips, SNA for First Western Bank Motion to table made by Mr. Nickle and second made by Mr. Andrews, motion carried 6-0-0 Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 2003 Page 6 SNA 03-09.00: Sign Variance (Golden Corral, pp 96) was submitted by Cobb sign Company, Inc. on behalf of Golden Corral for property located at 4507 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, (Commercial Thoroughfare). The requirement is for a 31' setback for the approved 26' pole sign. The request is for a 14' setback (a 17' variance). Green: Warrick: Last on our agenda is SNA 03-09.00 for the Golden Corral restaurant. Dawn, what can you tell us about this item? The Golden Corral project is located at 5470 N. College. This property borders the city limits of Johnson. It is in the far southwest corner of Johnson's Main Street where it intersects North College Avenue across the street from the Locomotion development. The applicant proposes to redevelopment this site for a Golden Corral restaurant. They have been through the Planning Commission and have been granted approval for a Large Scale Development. In the consideration of that Large Scale Development the Planning Commission does look at the signage package because it falls under the city's commercial design standards for their review on the development proposal itself. In this particular instance we've tried to include some site plan information for you because it is important for you to understand the topography in this location. It has some challenges that the applicant is trying to address with their development. Because of the elevation of the restaurant and the site itself with regard to its association with College Avenue a pole sign either needs to be taller or set closer to the street right of way in order to really maintain some visibility for the applicant. Of course our preference is not to have any taller signs. Our preference is to utilize signs that fall within the size requirements of the ordinance and move them on the site if necessary to provide some visibility. In this particular situation it is really because of the lay of the land that staff feels it is appropriate to recommend in favor of this variance for the location of the sign. They are proposing a 14' setback and that consists of a 17' variance. Green: Ok. Would the applicant like to address us? Speagle: I am Ken Speagle and I represent Cobb Signs. We are the company that builds signs for Golden Corral. As you have mentioned, a lot of this was handled through the Planning Commission previously. I worked with the sign engineer. I came out about a year and a half ago and we looked at the property and kind of determined that that was the best location, which again, the Golden Corral people looked at and said that would work for us. A lot of effort went into trying to pick that one spot that would work in complying with all of the other issues that were mentioned in developing this site. Nickle: Dawn, is this a variance for College Avenue or is it from Main Street? Warrick: The requirement is the setback from both but the proximity is off the Main Street side, the north side. Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 2003 Page 7 Nickle: I was just trying to understand where we would be granting a variance from. Warrick: That is exactly what it is. It is from the north side of the property which is the Main Street elevation. Olszewski: Dawn, is this a 26' sign or a 26'6" sign? Warrick: The application said 26' but it looks like the elevation shows 26'6". Olszewski: Our letter says 26'6". Nickle: Where is the city limits line? Speagle: I was told by the former owner of the property that the line is in the centerline of the street. I am not 100% on that. Warrick: I'm not positive on that but that looks about right. Nickle: I don't think we have to be real concerned about that do we David? Whitaker: No, the sign clearly is within the city limits of the City of Fayetteville and that is what you are regulating. Warrick: There are a couple of things that you can probably see no the larger site plan that is coming around that are again, mitigating situations or factors for this particular sign proposal. The right of way and the property line is a really great distance between either of the two adjoining streets because of intervening drainage and other infrastructure type improvements, the right of way jogs along Main Street and there is a whole lot or right of way between the proposed sign location and even the sidewalk, which would typically be the right of way line. I know that if the street right of way continued consistently with the sidewalk on that north side, which is what you commonly would see in a commercial development, it would easily meet that setback requirement. On the College Avenue side, it is not an issue but there is a very large drainage area between the property line and the actual constructed street of College Avenue. Kohler: I guess I'm not understanding. Why do you need the variance because you could move this sign over to the right and it would be fully, you could move it in front of the building. What is so magic about that location? Speagle: If you do that you start losing visibility from certain directions and then the sign is sitting on top of that building. Kohler: Not on top of it, in front of it. Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 2003 Page 8 Speagle: It would still be jammed up right against the building. You wouldn't have any space between the wall of the building and the sign. Kohler: Sure you would because you have got plenty of space between the building and College Avenue. Speagle: I can't go back there. The setback here has to stay back this far from this property line. Nickle: You've got setback on this side and this side. Kohler: I didn't see that line. Speagle: We tried to meet all the setbacks that we could. Warrick: There is a lot of room there on the north side but there is not a lot of room between the actual property line and the proposed sign location. Alt: Good luck with this project. MOTION: Nickle: I move we approve the request with staff's recommendations and comments. Alt: I second that. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance request along with staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 03-09.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Whitaker: I just wanted to let everyone know that you have been provided copies of Judge Hendren's Memorandum Opinion as well as the newly affective revised sign ordinance which became affective today because Sunday was a publication day. The full text was published in the paper yesterday so it is now affective at the beginning of business today. You need to read through it and you will notice changes. That is all I have. Green: Ok, meeting adjourned.